"How to Handle Nader" (in New Mexico)

[GreenPartyVoter]

In 2000, Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the state of New Mexico by a mere 356 votes--a slimmer margin than in Florida. Ralph Nader polled 21,000 votes. Nader not only nearly cost Gore the state, but forced him to expend valuable resources there in the campaign's waning days, draining his effort from Florida.

Flash forward to 2004. Once again the Democratic and Republican candidates are locked in a tight race nationally. Once again Nader's entry into the race threatens Kerry's hold on New Mexico. And once again two candidates who share many views and bases of support--and who ideally could work together to challenge George Bush on the economy, the war in Iraq, the future of social security, the environment, political reform and health care--instead are players in a Cain and Abel drama, courtesy of the all-or-nothing, winner-take-all nature of our presidential election method.

Yet there is a way out--if New Mexico Democrats decide they want one. Democrats control New Mexico's state legislature, and one of Kerry's leading vice-presidential contenders, Bill Richardson, is governor. Democrats could pass into law--right now--a runoff or instant runoff system with a majority requirement for president to ensure that the center-left does not split its vote between Kerry and Nader.

Here's how. The Constitution mandates the antiquated Electoral College system for electing the president, in which there is a series of elections in the fifty states and the District of Columbia rather than one national election. But the Constitution specifically delegates to states the method of choosing its electors. States historically have used a variety of different approaches, including letting the state legislature appoint electors, as threatened by Florida Republicans in 2000. Nebraska and Maine, for example, award two electoral votes to the winner of the statewide vote and one vote to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district (a flawed approach that would boost Republicans if in place nationally).

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0721-02.htm

[Cybergata]

1. Wow! This is tough one.

I'm almost afraid to mention this on DU, but I voted for Nader last election. It was the first time in a long time that I voted with my heart.

I love Ralph, but I can't vote for him this time. I actually like Kerry much better than Gore anyway.

The northern part of the state is very liberal, but I doubt they will vote for Nader simply because they hate Bush so much. I think the Dems. in this state could end up hurting the party if they change the rules to ensure Nader's electors were locked out.

I would really hate it if they way the Legislature changes the way we choose electors simply because they fear Nader. This would be a slap in the face of anyone who doesn't vote Democratic. I many be a life long Democrat, but this reminds me of Republican tactics to control the vote in Florida.

Don't do it Bill!

:hippie: